tv [untitled] December 7, 2010 5:00pm-5:30pm PST
residential units and one dedicated parking area as part of 85 natoma. this shows these s in red. this shows the impact on howard and now, -- and natoma. is passes through for the parcels before entering into the new facilities. the bus ramps are wider because they are going from one way traffic to two-way traffic. eventually, they are going to be a more substantial design. now the foundation requires we demolish in order to construct ramps in a safe manner.
this concludes my presentation. >> any questions? with that let me ask if there are any members of the publish who wish to speak -- public who wish to speak. let me ask if there are property owners who wish to speak in opposition. if there are, please the of to the microphone. each property owner shall have five minutes. >> may it please the hon. board, my name is fitzgerald. a garage owner. we have filed an objection letter dated november 23 in.
additionally, after i am through, he will address you as to the fax. in addition to the item we filed, one item became apparent which should be brought to your attention. that is referred to as immediate possession. the city is now going to ask for the possession of property in 90 days, rather than wait until the end of the proceeding. we do not believe they have the authority to do that under the law.
it is our opinion that they cannot take the property for an immediate possession, and that is based on the property itself and what is being done there. the property owner has been led to believe there will only be a partial property, not the entire property. the employed architects and engineers expanded $150,000, work with the city planning staff, and submitted a number of different plans and schematics.
thank you for your time. thank you. >> thank you. are you representing the same property? >> i own the property. >> i understand that is one property, sir you get the balance of his time. >> i had six minutes of commons. we have been in the building since 1975. i am an urban economist, and in 1975, they said this was one of the most vibrant parts of downtown.
i testified in 2005, in which case i found out briefly that the redevelopment agency says it could be avoided with the tax increments they are donating. that is impossible. i turned out to be right about that. they expanded the building, and they increase. what i am asking here is that you only use the property if you need it. today's presentation was the first day i thought there or going to feed to ramps -- to be two rams. i ask that this not be a program where we take up extra land for private development.
thank you, and i would like to leave these documents. i thank you very much. >> thank you. next. >> could afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to let me express my opinion. my family has owned and operated since 1992. first, we are aware of the objections, and we join in the objections. the initial year when we owned the property was difficult your your it was not until 1999 that
it was threatened by software companies. they started spreading rumors the properties were going to be condemned. they were continually changing. an agency began performing various tasks that did not match information. this is the first time we heard of fat. from that time forward it became extremely difficult. we knew this was almost impossible. in our neighborhood, it is rejected for no apparent reason.
they hired a law firm and a contractor with misleading information to visit our attendance on our regular basis, to coach them on how to reach project spirit of we have spent tens of thousands of dollars to fight several cases in san francisco. from day one, they were never ready to pay a fairly. we will discuss how we can work together to achieve of mutually- agreed proposal. we understand the issue has already been made.
before i allow the next speaker to voice their opinions, we have to remind you. imagine if you were in our position, please the us how we should do this. we always want the neighborhood to move forward on behalf of the city is curator -- of this city. they are not treating us fairly in this case. >> thank you. identify yourself. >> good afternoon. i am an attorney who represents my brother, standing next to me. i have several points to make
your your first, i have a handout for each -- i have several points to make. i have a handout for each. i have declarations from myself and my brother and further objections to this resolution. we also adopt resolutions from other parties, especially in the 90-days the city may years to obtain possession of the property. we support the project in general, but we are committed to keeping the property as long as possible. i have several points to make. we believe they have not acted in good-faith with regard to negotiations.
we have us for documents showing any infringement or encroachment on property over the last four years. what we received were misrepresentations of the project that were false. i have attached to my declaration exhibit 3 and exhibit 5, which are contained on pages 23, 93, and 24-17 of the official record. when we asked whether brown was going to be, they gave us a copy of the diagram, which had already been scrapped common and they argue there will be an overlay of this round on our property pursuant to what is contained therein. after numerous hours of looking at the documents, which are a bunch of telephone books to go
through at considerable time and expense, we considered the maps they gave us were very overruled. they basically change the direction of the round and also changed it from one story to two stories. of what we have been asking is to show us a diagram. today they put out a diagram that is not for a detailed. -- not very detailed. please remember there are asking for a resolution of necessity. what they have is alternatives. i have asked for dozens of
alternatives. i read the letter that indicates we're down to two alternatives. you would have a survey showing that encouragement on our property. there is an existing ramp next to our building, which needs to be demolished for the project. you do not need to demolish the. there are other properties next to the ramp that are actually closer to us.
we are thinking we are being unfairly treated. lastly, we urge the board to vote against it at this time. we can take it up later or we can postpone this vote until a future date. thank you. >> thank you. if i could ask the next honor to stand korean -- owner to stand. >> i have an ownership interest
in parcels being taken. number one, number two, #4 common -- 4, and parking spots. i have 10 minutes, but i plan on not taking 10 minutes. i want to say that in the past three months we have closed on construction financing on two projects, creating 290 units. estimates are that we will hire 150 people. we think that is going to apply across all the trades during of we are happy we are contributing to local hiring. i am an absolute supporter of
the train extension and high- speed rail carrier our properties -- high-speed rail. our property has been hindered for almost a decade now, and i am glad these have never been taken. we have had a difficult feat leasing these. we have been unable to refinance. i am glad we are finally here before you discussing this. we have two significant issues. i constructed both of the buildings that are referenced, and it is unfortunate they have
already purchased the unit, and the price paid for that unit was 59% on a per square foot basis carrier -- basis. i do not understand. it is a huge disparity on what is happening. we anticipate this process will go through and we will still be debating value. the issue at hand is sparking, -- parking, and if i could just show you the two buildings -- this is 580 howard. this is the electric building. it does rehabilitated in 1997.
immediately behind that is 85 natoma. a share of property line. youwhat is happening is they alo need to take the parking at reside on the land -- that reside on the land. the parking comes in and close to its own property. -- and goes to its own property. and my contention is they are greatly impacting the ability to continue to operate in a reasonable manner during the day have already taken one of the 15 units and closed on the transaction earlier this year,
and they leave that for approximately 50%, so they undercut all of our units, which is a hardship upon us. they will have a significant impact on our ability to read superior -- to rent. the project plan is to construct an elevated bus routa5 feet away. there are projected to be tens if not hundreds of buses traveling on this ramp per day, and there have been no measures for sound on our property, because the ultimate plan is to
take howard. -- 580 howard, and demolish it, and construct a train extension. they are greatly destroying our ability to to lease it by driving, taking all our property, and now constructing this bus route 5 feet away from our property lines with no sound mitigation measures. this is our elevated bus routes. it is within 5 feet of the property line, and the graphic shows the elevated bus ramp going on to our property, so i am not sure how that is happening. my point is they are damaging to us.
why are we being so damaged by this process? it seems the only reason they are not taking the whole property is for the current value of money. i am here to encourage you to stop damaging to us. >> are there any other property owners who wish to speak? seeing none at this time, if i can ask if there are any members of the public to oppose any of these resolutions? if you wish to speak, please step up. seeing none at this time, if i can invite the staff for up to 10 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. to quickly go through some of
the issues, they have mitigated the steps by designing the project in such a way. none of the properties are being used for development of any sort. they are being used for infrastructure on the project. all of the properties before you were identified for acquisition in the environmental impact report, which was adopted in 2004, so since then, the owners have known these properties need to be acquired for the project. 4 howard st., we have been in negotiations for almost four years. we have made our first offers in 2007 and made additional offers. each offer has gone down in value because real estate has gone down in value.
we are using the same of presser's -- appraisers for all the projects. it really does come from the fact that the one we did purchase was filled at a much higher grade, a much better finish. i do take exception to the comments they have been intentionally trying to be difficult with these owners. we do not have final designs yet. we do not know exactly where the bus routes will be, but we know that we need to acquire the property. it may shift the matter 3 inches or 4 inches, but it is going to be 15 or 20 feet into the property.
>> are there any questions. supervisor daly: -- supervisor dufty: i want to disclose that patrick was my client for several months. i would like to come back to a couple of points. my understanding is it is a 15- unit building. they were exceptional in comparison with the rest of the units. i think what he is trying to understand is if there are plans that call for the acquisition of this building, and why not acquire it now? if the potential is there for a bus route, it is going to be close to that property.
is there not some rationale that would make you want to consider acquiring it? >> we can take into consideration. it has been twofold. we have tried not to acquire property because of the likelihood that we would probably not use it. second, it is a cash flow issue. in particular, office buildings are in excess of $1 million each. the property does not have the cash to acquire this.
we can take a look at this and see if there is any way we can get the opposition. in particular, to see if there is any way we can reuse the property, but he is right that if needs to be acquired to demolish from 580 all the way to the corner. it needs to be excavated. in likelihood, which will not need that property for another six or seven years. >> he testified that he will no longer have a parking access. the parking enters on natoma,
but that is another devaluation of the building. i understand the value of money over time. it is difficult for everyone. >> to recognize taking the property values its. we are purchasing that by acknowledging the change in values of front, richard up f-- up front. >> he retains the units. >> correct. >> i do appreciate your willingness to talk about the bigger issues. it does seem like a difficult set of circumstances.
supervisor alioto-pier: continuing the conversation, if you are having a problem renting out for selling the unit as a result of the city's movement and actions and negotiating, we are incumbent to help him, so i would like to reiterate what supervisor duffy has said. if there is something we can do, i think we should do that. it is clear our actions are impacting the ability to rent or sell this. supervisor chu: